But for those who like pot-- man, that must be some good f'n' shit to cause all of this absurd righteousness about getting your bag searched.

You can do just about any illegal vice if you do it discreetly. Unfortunately, these pot activists demand the right to march down to their local police station, jump onto the watch commander's desk and lite up.

Hey! Those same laws that protect stoners's stashes protect my illegally concealed handguns.

Except Terry v. Ohio, dad gummit. That's too stoner-friendly.

C'mon. One's state action, the other isn't.

And...?

In both cases you're entering restricted property, right? A subway isn't like a public street; you have to pay for play. Your right to be there is restricted,

In one cops are frisking you. In the other I assume they are private security cops who are not acting at the behest of the police. Hmmm. I forgot, and I assume it depends on where you live, whether private security could ever be considered state action.

I'm guessing that the subway would employ security guards rather than use city police officers.

I haven't lived in NYC for a while. I thought they had subway cops there.

I'm surprised they don't have car safety-seats for bongs.

If they don't, they should. Spilled bong water is akin to a toxic spill.

The State cannot perform an illegal search. A private entity can perform any search they want as a barrier to entry to their private premises. Want to come into my place of business? The rule is, you have to submit to a search by this burly lady I call "Miss Eight-Fingers".

That said, the *CLU come off as hypocritical when they tacitly admit that bag searches are critical to good security.

In both cases you're entering restricted property, right? A subway isn't like a public street; you have to pay for play.

But in the case of the subway, it's city cops -- government agents, bound by the Fourth Amendment -- who are doing the searching. I don't think it much matters where the search happens, or whether you had to pay to get in; it's who's conducting it.

Even if the city contracted out to private security it might be state action. In Calif. “when private security personnel are fulfilling a public function, i.e., engaging in a statutorily authorized citizen's arrest and detention of a person in aid of law enforcement authorities, and they conduct an illegal search or seizure, . . . the exclusionary rule, apply.” (In re Christopher H. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1567, 1570. )

But in the case of the subway, it's city cops -- government agents, bound by the Fourth Amendment -- who are doing the searching. I don't think it much matters where the search happens, or whether you had to pay to get in; it's who's conducting it.

So? You try entering a courthouse lately? Seems the government has a lot of government-agents their to search you as you enter.

If a courthouse, why not the subway? They're both controlled by the government, and they're not public space in the sense that a street is.

In our post-9/11 world, and post-London bombing world, I'd say Ace has a good point. We can't look at subways as just another public place these days, and sooner or later, the law will catch up to reality. I hope.

You've confused me, ace. Subway cops and private cops contracted to act as cops for municipalities are state action. Prvt security cops protecting office blds and ACLU are no state action. I would assume courthouses are state action, no?

Harry's right, too. Courthouses have security issues which always trumps 4th Amendment concerns if legitimate. In this day and age, wd the same apply to public transportation especially since we know that they have been target by islamoturds.

That's a good point, and I'm not sure how the government justifies it. I can sort of buy the argument that it's necessary at criminal courthouses, where you've got felons coming and going all day long. But civil courthouses? Free-floating probable cause w/r/t everyone who enters? I don't see it.

Maybe they draw some distinction between places where the government does its business, like a courthouse, and places that are state-operated but for public use generally. I.e., in the case of the former, the government has more of a proprietary interest over the space and therefore has greater latitude in searching people.

Like I say, though, not sure.

Anyway, the argument works the other way, too. Just because they can search you when you enter the courthouse, surely that doesn't mean they can search you for no reason whatsoever when you visit a national park, for instance.

I really don't care one way or the other if the person randomly searching my bag is a state official or not.

Private buildings hire security guards to keep their building and it's workers safe.

The city of New York entrusts the NYPD of doing the same task. What difference does it make if they're state or not?

Would we rather spend money on some massive private force that specializes bag searches? What if we had volunteers conducting them? Would the ACLU be able to fight that? If we took the state vs. private argument out of the equation, would the ACLU drop the case?

Doubtful.

wait ... so how *does* this affect my weed bag? You never finished that part.

But civil courthouses? Free-floating probable cause w/r/t everyone who enters? I don't see it.

From my own experiences: Where you have felons coming and going, you also have numerous police officer, sheriff's, and marshal's and they are all heavily armed. I feel safe. In civil courthouses, you get overflow criminal cases and less people are armed. But that is not what scares me. It is the divorce cases, the custody disputes, the piddly ass neighbor civil disputes are where gunfire breaks out or worse. Our criminal courts got priority security. It took forever for our civil courthouses to become secure which was ridiculous considering the number of shooting deaths. Then there was the mom who was in a custody dispute. During a break she took her two little girls up to the outdoor café on the 8th floor and threw them off and then jumped. I guess you can't do much about that, but still after all the shootings you had to ask, wtf?!! As an atty, you are more likely to get shot in Family Law.

So, I say at all civil courthouses search search search.

Maybe they draw some distinction between places where the government does its business, like a courthouse, and places that are state-operated but for public use generally. I.e., in the case of the former, the government has more of a proprietary interest over the space and therefore has greater latitude in searching people.

Or, you have more holdings on the books that say security is decided by the judge and the sheriffs, etc., therefore, it is more of a settled issue. You also have a place with a lot of attys who are going to insist on security as oppose to poor joe schmo public.

Anyway, the argument works the other way, too. Just because they can search you when you enter the courthouse, surely that doesn't mean they can search you for no reason whatsoever when you visit a national park, for instance.

Fancy you shd bring that up. I use to live with park ranger. You are two hours away from help with equipment that never worked, out numbered by people who may be poachers, drug runners, under the influence, hostile and carrying illegal weapons. So, as non-le but sort of at the behest of law enforcement (Go snoop around. Wait, you're telling me to go look for guns? These guys may have illegal guns? Noooo!) But hey, plain sight is plain sight and probable cause is anything that is specific and articulate.

The ACLU they thinks they have priladges what a bunch of hypotcrits